03Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 9/6/2023 has been crossed out since this IDS duplicates the same documents as filed in IDS dated 8/30/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “R2TM14B1-type” in the instant claims is suggested to be amended as “R2TM14B1-type”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda et al (US-PG-pub 2018/0294079 A1, thereafter PG’079).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, PG’079 teaches an R-T-B magnet material in powder form with anisotropic property (Abstract, claims, and examples, par.[0008], and [0068] of PG’079), which reads on the rare-earth anisotropic magnet powder comprising magnetic particles, the magnetic particles containing rare-earth elements, boron, and a transition metal element as recited in the instant claim. The comparison between the material composition ranges disclosed in example #16 in table 1 of PG’079 and those disclosed in the instant claims are listed in the following table. All of the alloy composition ranges and elements ratios disclosed by PG’079 read the claimed alloy composition ranges and elements ratios as claimed in the instant claims. Since PG’079 teaches all of the limitations as claimed in the instant claims, claims 1 and 3-5 is anticipated by PG’079.
Element
From instant Claim 1 (at%)
Example #16 in table 1 of PG’079 (at%)
within range
(at%)
R
First R: Ce and/or La
Second R: Nd and/or Pr
Ce: 1.5
Nd: 15.12
Ce: 1.5
Nd: 15.12
TM
Fe included (cl.1)
Fe: 77.75
Fe: 77.75
B
B: 4.91
B: 4.91
R1/Rt
5-57
About 9
About 9
Ga
0.35 or less
0.32
0.32
From instant Claim 3 (at%)
Al
0.2-3
0.25
0.25
From instant Claim 4 (at%)
Nb
0.05-0.7
0.14
0.14
From instant Claim 5 (at%)
Rt
12-18
16.62
16.62
Regarding the instant claim 6, PG’079 teaches that the R-T-B based permanent magnet including a main phase including a compound having an R2T14B type tetragonal structure and a grain boundary phase existing between the main phases (abstract, Fig.3, par.[0064], [0088] and claims of PG’079), which reads on the claimed limitations as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, PG’079 teaches that the R-T-B based permanent magnet including a main phase and a grain boundary phase existing between the main phases manufactured by reduction diffusion method (par.[0122] and claims of PG’079), which reads on the claimed diffusion step as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, PG’079 teaches that HDDR (Hydrogenation-Disproportionation-Desorption-Recombination) process is performed on the raw material alloy. The HDDR process is a process to chemically obtain a powder including a refined crystal grains by sequentially performing hydrogenation, disproportionation, desorption (dehydrogenation), and recombination of the raw material alloy. By producing the R-T-B based permanent magnet by using the powder obtained by the HDDR process, the diameter of the main phase crystal grains after sintering can be reduced and the particle size distribution thereof can be narrowed. (par.[0124] of PG’079), which is the same method as claimed in the instant claim.
. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’079 in view of Suzuki et al (US-PG-pub 2013/0271249 A1, thereafter PG’249) .
Regarding claim 2, PG’079 teaches an R-T-B magnet material in powder form with anisotropic property (Abstract, claims, and examples, par.[0008], and [0068] of PG’079). The example #16 in table 1 of PG’079 including 0.02 at% Cu in the alloy, which is outside the claimed 0.1-3 at% Cu range in the instant claim. PG’249 teaches a composition of an R-T-B-based rare-earth magnet material (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’249) including all of major alloy elements (par.[0022] of Pg’249) as claimed in the instant invention. PG’249 specify that the magnetic body contains 1.0 to 1.25 mass % of Cu with respect to the total mass thereof in order to form the desired coercive force (par.00440] of PG’249), which is within the claimed Cu range as claimed in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize amount of Cu amount from the disclosure of PG’249 for the alloy of PG’079 in order to obtain the desired coercive force (par.00440] of PG’249).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734